Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Bail Denied in Rape Case: RJ HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 The Rajasthan High Court denied Godman Asaram Bapu's motion to suspend sentences in a case involving the sexual assault of a minor [Asharam @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan].

Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Sandeep Mehta were hearing the third application filed by Bapu after he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting a minor and sentenced to life in prison.

The Jodhpur bench of the High Court ruled that the appellant did not merit bail based on the nature and severity of the allegations, as well as the fact that the appeal itself was ready for hearing.

Asaram filed the petition on the grounds that he was an 83-year-old elderly man suffering from multiple ailments.

He stated that he had been incarcerated for nine years and seven months, and therefore deserved bail.

It was also stated that it was evident from a cursory reading of the victim's statement that he was not guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.

The court, however, did not find sufficient evidence to grant the application.

2013 saw the arrest of Asaram Bapu on charges of raping a minor girl. The alleged offence occurred in the Manai village of Jodhpur in August 2013.

On August 20, 2013, a FIR was initially registered against him. In accordance with the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, he was arrested at midnight on August 31, 2013.

According to the chargeseet submitted in November 2013, Asaram and the other accused were indicted for various violations of the Indian Penal Code, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, including trafficking, rape, outraging a woman's modesty, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

Following Asaram's arrest, two women from Surat filed a complaint alleging they were raped between 2002 and 2005 by Asaram and his son.

The felony trial for the alleged rape in Jodhpur began in 2014 and lasted four years. In the course of the trial, nine witnesses were attacked, and three were murdered.

The applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, Advocates Rajesh Inamdar and RS Saluja, and the respondent was represented by AAG Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor RR Chhaperwal, and Advocate PC Solanka.

D.D:07-07-2022

Asharam @ Ashumal versus. State of Rajasthan 

Latest Legal News